Report this post

Full article: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-04-02-ea-mobile-boss-freemium-haters-a-vocal-minority

There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

I like how he used the phrase "all-you-can-eat" to describe the more traditional B2P model. It makes people that prefer that style of payment sound like they have a massive plate of food with barbeque sauce all over their face, gorging themselves with as much content as they can consume.

Report this post

"There's a vocal contingent of gamers online who don't appreciate free-to-play business models, but their complaints are being drowned out by customers speaking with their wallets..." - Nick Earl

Don't you find it ironic that both 'free-to-play' and 'speaking with their wallets' are both used in the same sentence; especially when you consider that 'speaking with their wallets' suggests people are buying here. So, basically, people are buying free-to-play games. Honestly, 'free-to-play' is a marketing term that does not accurately describe these games. Here's a few that describe these games better:

- Demo, With the Option to Buy More Content

- Partial Game With Endless Developer Hands Dipping Into Your Pockets For Money

- Free To Download, Expensive To Get The Whole Game

- Whale Hunting

- Endless Nickel & Diming For Complete Experience

- Half The Value At Double Or More The Price of Premium Games

I remember when companies first started the whole 'free-to-play' is the future. Not many people actually wanted it. However, once they did (or rather, once the younger 'entitlement' crowd came) you started seeing the trolling increase; the immaturity of gamers increase; and the general decline of gaming. Suddenly, planting crops in a game that asked you to spam your friends every 10 seconds or sign-up for this or that credit card became popular.

FACT: There are very few 'true' free-to-play games -if any- that are not partial games in comparison to premium games. There are no exceptions. League of Legends? (which actually is a very well done 'free-to-play' game) Nope. You have to unlock heroes with money. You don't get them all so you don't have the full game. The same even goes for freemium games such as LoTRO. Sure, you can earn stuff through in-game means, but you cannot unlock the entire game without a subscription.

Report this post

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

I prefer sub / b2p purely for the reason there is an upfront investment to discourage people from cheating. Otherwise with F2P they just make a new account and go right back to cheating again. Especially with shooters.

As it stands it gives the impression that he is talking about MMORPGs.

But, have to say, what EA say or think has zero zilch value to me.

Exactly. What that corporate maggot says means nothing to me.

I think it says something when the F2P campaigners have to use quotes from someone like EA to support their point... and EA and their shareholders liking a revenue model is meant to be encouraging to me how? ;)

Report this post

Full article: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-04-02-ea-mobile-boss-freemium-haters-a-vocal-minority

The numbers are being misrepresented here. It can be simplified and understood this way:

Game A (Premium):

10,000 people who bought it

Game B (Free-To-Play):

50,000 people play it

5,000 people pay for the nickel & dime scheme (10% conversation, VERY VERY HIGH)

Of course, 50,000 is a bigger number than 10,000 so -for marketing/pr purposes- you twist this around.

Now, Game B may make more money than Game A, but that's because Game B 'whales' have to PAY FAR MORE MONEY to get the same experience as Game A. Therefore, in the end, to get the same experience as those in Game A the 'whales' in Game B have to pay a HIGHER PREMIUM.

As it stands it gives the impression that he is talking about MMORPGs.

But, have to say, what EA say or think has zero zilch value to me.

Exactly. What that corporate maggot says means nothing to me.

I think it says something when the F2P campaigners have to use quotes from someone like EA to support their point... and EA and their shareholders liking a revenue model is meant to be encouraging to me how? ;)

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by Warley

... You don't get them all so you don't have the full game. The same even goes for freemium games such as LoTRO. Sure, you can earn stuff through in-game means, but you cannot unlock the entire game without a subscription.

I wonder if this is a substainable business model in the long run. Just consider your freemium example (LOTRO). A smart player can unlock most of the game by a combination of paying to unlock content and earning Turbine points to unlock content as well. The bottom line is that you might spend significantly less money than with a sub. With those options a sub becomes the company's unloved foster child.

On the other hand the company will be forced to add more and more features that are not related to the gameplay. Instead it's intended to tempt (gullible?) players to spend more. Just take the "Daily Dice" feature from LOTRO's sibling DDO.